There are known headmount devices for attaching and supporting vision enhancing equipment, commonly used to free the hands of the user or otherwise provide ease and efficiency of use and enhanced activity. Such vision enhancing equipment includes night vision goggles, binoculars, prescription or protective lenses, microscopic lenses and similar devices. These vision enhancing devices are utilized for example, in a variety of military and commercial applications where enhanced vision during low light or night conditions is desirable, or to perform microscopic surgery. The operation and mounting of certain vision enhancing equipment is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,857,599 entitled MOUNTING BRACKET ASSEMBLY FOR A NIGHT VISION DEVICE issued to Gary L. Palmer on Jan. 12, 1999 (also see U.S. Pat. No. 5,495,364 entitled NIGHT VISION BINOCULARS issued to Gary L. Palmer on Feb. 27, 1996, and U.S. Pat. No. 5,537,261 entitled NIGHT VISION BINOCULARS issued to Gary L. Palmer on Jul. 16, 1996).
One of the purposes for employing headmount equipment is to suspend the vision enhancing equipment, which typically weighs 0.3–0.9 kg, in front of the user's eye(s). Suspending the vision enhancing equipment in front of the user's eye(s) leaves his hands free to operate or manipulate other equipment. Additionally, the headmount equipment should serve to minimize the relative motion between the device and the user's eye(s). By minimizing this relative motion, the user's head movement does not prevent the image projected by the system from being seen by the user.
Common headmounts consist of a harness which grabs the user's head, a platform that distributes the load attached to the headmount equipment, and single or multiple links which attach the vision enhancing device to the platform. Conventional harness configurations utilize adjustable straps to tightly bind the platform to the user's head. One problem with the conventional harness configurations is that the degree to which the harness maintains the position of the vision enhancing device in front of the user's eye(s) is determined by the tightness of its adjustable straps.
Another problem with the prior art headmounts is that they are difficult to adjust. For example, when a user positions the platform on their head, they typically place and hold it in position with one hand, and use the other hand to roughly adjust the straps. And then once the straps are tightened enough so as to suspend the vision enhancing equipment in front of the user's face, the user needs to employ both hands to adjust the tension and length of all the straps until the harness is properly fitted. As evident from the above description, adjustment of the straps while the platform is on the user's head is difficult. Additionally, the straps used to bind the platform to the user's head are typically hard to operate. In particular, the straps must be loosened in the buckle before they can actually be tightened. Moreover, the buckles often interfere with the comfort of the user since they impinge on the user's cranium.
Another shortcoming associated with typical headmount equipment is the fact that the conventional vision enhancing equipment attached to the headmount equipment is often heavy and cantilevered away from the support out over the user's line of sight. This cantilevering requires a great deal of tension to reliably hold the system in position, which results in constriction of the user's cranium. This constriction in turn causes a whole range of deleterious side-effects. For example, the constriction of the user's cranium might cause initial discomfort which could increase over time and could result in pain.
Such discomfort and/or pain impedes the user's situational awareness by distracting him or causing fatigue and could provoke the user to remove the headmount equipment to alleviate the pain. Because headaches resulting from such pain may last for hours, the typical headmount system actually causes the user to not employ the vision enhancement system since he cannot bear the pain associated with its use.
Moreover, because the headmount equipment is often used in adverse situations, it is commonly worn in conjunction with a helmet. However, the straps and buckles used to keep the platform properly positioned are often bulky. And because of this bulkiness, the headmount may not be compatible with other head-mounted equipment such as a helmet, because the straps and buckles are too bulky to allow a user to simultaneously wear a headmount device and a helmet because the harness of the typical headmount equipment interferes with the helmet's suspension system.
This interference also causes localized pressure on the soft tissue of the user, causing pain either immediately, or over time. Such localized pain to soft tissue is commonly referred to as a “hotspot.” Additionally, the interference of the harness with the helmet's suspension system also causes problems with attaining the proper adjustment of the helmet in conjunction with the headmount equipment. And even after the user properly adjusts the helmet, the interference of the harness with the helmet's suspension system interferes with maintaining the proper adjustment of both the helmet and the headmount equipment.
Another problem commonly associated with typical headmount equipment is that it fails to distribute the load of the vision enhancing system over the optimal portion of the cranium. For example, optimally distributing the load over the top of the skull, the forehead, the temporal region and the cheekbone would eliminate much of the pain and discomfort discussed above. Another problem commonly associated with typical headmount equipment is that it prevents the expansion of the cranium. Such expansion occurs with normal dilation of blood vessels and increased blood flow due to temperature regulation and/or physical exertion. Preventing the cranium from expanding will result in the user experiencing the pain and discomfort discussed above. Similarly, the typical headmount equipment will not contract along with the cranium when the blood vessels constrict. Therefore, as the cranium contracts the typical headmount loosens and allows the headmount equipment to move out of place.
Another problem with the typical headmount equipment is that it blocks a considerable portion of the user's facial area. For example, typical headmount equipment is bulky and extends into the user's peripheral vision, resulting in a reduction to the user's field of vision. Similarly, the poor design of typical headmount equipment also prevents the user from employing communication devices or breathing apparatus while simultaneously wearing the headmount equipment.
Problems also arise when the user employs incompatible protective eye wear in conjunction with typical headmount equipment. For example, common headmount equipment fails to provide enough space between it and the user's cranium so as to allow the arms of protective eyewear to wrap around the user's cranium. Therefore, the arms of the protective eyewear are forced on top of the headmount equipment. Positioning the eye wear in such a manner that prevents it from snuggly fitting against the user's cranium, thereby allowing the eyewear to fall off or move out of position.
Accordingly, these and other drawbacks exist.